Former prime minister John Howard says he was "embarrassed" intelligence he used to take Australia to war in Iraq was inaccurate and denies it was a "deliberate deception".

In an interview broadcast on the Seven Network, Mr Howard said he and the then National Security Committee of Cabinet in 2003 sent Australian troops into Iraq because they believed American intelligence that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the West.

However, he said as evidence emerged that there were no weapons of mass destruction "I felt embarrassed. I couldn't believe it, because I had genuinely believed it".

As former prime minister John Howard revealed in his speech on global warming, we have departed from the evidence into a realm propelled purely by political necessity.

By this relentless political logic, it can only be a matter of time before we have a group of politicians who fully accept the truth of climate science and the dire possibilities that it entails, then act against the dictates of that scientific certainty for narrow short-term advantage.

That would be a high point in modern politics, a moment that might achieve a blissful state of near political perfection and something close to outright evil.

I must admit I don't understand the rules of outrage as they are currently applied in Australia.

Sure, it's obvious why people were appalled at Alan Jones' recent comments about the Prime Minister's dad, and it's a good thing that so many have exercised their power as citizens and consumers to hit back against the shock jock and the company that employs him, via their advertisers.

But why do we get more outraged by Alan Jones' insult than we do about important political issues?